stages 1-3 archaeological assessment of · jay villapando . archeoworks inc. 1 stage 1...

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for the: Brooklin Secondary Plan Area

Environmental Assessment Within Parts of Lots 22-23, Concession 4;

Lots 18-28, Concession 5; Lots 18-31, Concession 6; and, Lots 19-31, Concession 7

Geographic Township of Whitby Historical County of Ontario

Town of Whitby Regional Municipality of Durham

Ontario

Project #: 028-2195-06 Licensee (#): Nimal Nithiyanantham (P390)

PIF #: P390-0047-2013

Original Report

December 19th, 2014

Presented to: Brooklin Landowners Group

c/o Malone Given Parsons Ltd. 140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201

Markham, Ontario L3R 6B3

T: 905.513.0170 F: 905.513.0177

Prepared by: Archeoworks Inc.

16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029 Newmarket, Ontario

L3X 1X4 T: 416.676.5597 F: 416.676.5810

AR

CH

EOW

OR

KS

INC

.

Archeoworks Inc. i

Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for the Brooklin Secondary Plan Environmental Assessment, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Whitby is undertaking a comprehensive study, called the Brooklin Study, to prepare a Secondary Plan and Transportation Master Plan to enable the Town to guide and manage growth in the Brooklin area. The purpose of the Secondary Plan is to determine the land use designations for the urban expansion areas north and west of Brooklin, the industrial lands adjacent to the future Highway 407 and the lands in the vicinity of the Conlin Road/Anderson Street intersection, as well as to update the existing Brooklin Community Secondary Plan. Stage 1 involves the preparation of a number of background studies to inform the secondary plan and potential land uses Archeoworks Inc. was retained by the Brooklin Landowners Group to conduct a Stage 1 AA for the Brooklin Study, falling within parts of Lots 22-23, Concession 4; Lots 18-28, Concession 5; Lots 18-31, Concession 6 and; Lots 19-31, Concession 7, in the Geographic Township of Whitby, Historical County of Ontario, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario The Stage 1 AA has identified the potential for the recovery of Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources within undisturbed portions of the study area. Archaeological potential was established based on the presence and proximity of watercourses and historical transportation routes, archival evidence for historical structures within and adjacent to the study area, the presence of identified archaeological sites within 300 metres of the study area, and the presence of the historic, Pioneer Baptist Cemetery, immediately adjacent to the study area. A review of reports documenting archaeological fieldwork within the study area as well as within 50 metres of its limits has revealed that sizeable areas have already been subjected to various stages of AA. Of these, a number of reports have concluded that their study areas did not or no longer contain archaeological potential, and have therefore been cleared of archaeological concern. The areas covered by these reports are recommended to be exempt from further archaeological concern. It must be noted, however, that those reports documenting assessments within or near to the current study area limits that still have not been cleared of archaeological concern cannot be exempt from further assessment. An on-site property inspection, as well as a review aerial and satellite imagery, has determined that much of the study area has retained its rural character, with many portions remaining largely undisturbed. Therefore, it is recommended that any undisturbed portions of the study area that have not been cleared of archaeological concern be subjected to the appropriate stages of AA prior to the onset of construction, grading, or other development activities.

Archeoworks Inc. ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. ii Project Personnel ............................................................................................................................ iii 1.0 Project Context .................................................................................................................... 1-26

1.1 Development Context ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Historical Context ......................................................................................................... 1-12 1.3 Archaeological Context ............................................................................................... 12-26 1.4 Confirmation of Archaeological Potential ....................................................................... 26

2.0 Property Inspection................................................................................................................. 26 3.0 Analysis and Conclusions ................................................................................................... 27-28

3.1 Previously Surveyed Areas .............................................................................................. 27 3.2 Identified Cemeteries ...................................................................................................... 27 3.3 Identified Deep and Extensive Disturbances ................................................................... 27 3.4 Areas of No or Low Archaeological Potential .................................................................. 28 3.5 Areas of Archaeological Potential ................................................................................... 28

4.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 28-29

5.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation .................................................................................. 30

6.0 Bibliography and Sources ................................................................................................... 31-36 Tables Table 1: Historical Structures within the Stage 1 AA Study Area ............................................. 8-11 Table 2: Designated and Listed Heritage Properties within the Stage 1 AA Study Area .............. 12 Table 3: Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area ........................................................... 13-14 Table 4: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario ............................................................... 14-15 Appendices Appendix A: Maps .................................................................................................................... 37-45 Appendix B: Summary of Background Research .......................................................................... 46 Appendix C: Images .................................................................................................................. 47-51 Appendix D: Inventory of Documentary and Material Record ..................................................... 52 Appendix E: PIF Revisions ............................................................................................................. 53

Archeoworks Inc. iii


PROJECT PERSONNEL

Project Director .......................................................... Nimal Nithiyanantham – MTCS licence P390 Property Inspection ................................................................ Kaye Boucher – MTCS licence R1004 Report Preparation .................................................................................................... Solomon Klein

Jay Villapando Report Review ............................................................. Nimal Nithiyanantham - MTCS licence P390

Kim Slocki – MTCS licence P029 Historical Research.................................................................. Lee Templeton – MTCS licence R454 Graphics ..................................................................................................................... Solomon Klein

Lee Templeton – MTCS licence R454 Jay Villapando

Archeoworks Inc. 1


1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 Development Context The Town of Whitby is undertaking a comprehensive study, called the Brooklin Study, to prepare a Secondary Plan and Transportation Master Plan to enable the Town to guide and manage growth in the Brooklin area. The purpose of the Secondary Plan is to determine the land use designations for the urban expansion areas north and west of Brooklin, the industrial lands adjacent to the future Highway 407 and the lands in the vicinity of the Conlin Road/Anderson Street intersection, as well as to update the existing Brooklin Community Secondary Plan. Stage 1 involves the preparation of a number of background studies to inform the secondary plan and potential land uses. The Brooklin Landowners Group is working collaboratively with the Town of Whitby in preparing some of the background studies for Stage 1. This report, the “Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for the: Brooklin Secondary Plan Area Environmental Assessment,” is one of the background studies prepared as part of Stage 1 of the Brooklin Study and was prepared on behalf of the Brooklin Landowners Group. This report was peer reviewed by the Town’s consultants and comments and input by the Town’s peer reviewer have been incorporated into this report. The objectives of a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA), as outlined by the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (‘2011 S&G’), published by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS), are as follows:

To provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition;

To evaluate in detail the property’s archaeological potential, which will support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property; and

To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey. Archeoworks Inc. was retained by the Brooklin Landowners Group to conduct a Stage 1 AA for the Brooklin Study, falling within parts of Lots 22-23, Concession 4; Lots 18-28, Concession 5; Lots 18-31, Concession 6 and; Lots 19-31, Concession 7, in the Geographic Township of Whitby, Historical County of Ontario, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (the ‘study area,’ see Appendix A – Map 1). The study was triggered jointly by the Ontario Environmental Assessment/ Planning Act. This Stage 1 AA was conducted under the project direction of Mr. Nimal Nithiyanantham, under archaeological consultant licence P390, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (2009). Permission to investigate the study area was granted by the Brooklin Landowners Group on February 20, 2013.

Archeoworks Inc. 2


1.2 Historical Context The 2011 S&G considers areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, and pioneer churches and early cemeteries, as having archaeological potential. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. Early historical transportation routes (trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes), properties listed in a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark or site, and properties that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations are also considered to have archaeological potential. To establish the archaeological and historical significance of the study area, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a comprehensive review of listed and designated heritage properties, as well as registered archaeological sites, within close proximity to its limits. Furthermore, a review of the physiography of the overall area and its correlation to locating archaeological remains, as well as consultation of available historical documentation was performed. The results of this background research are documented below and summarized in Appendix B – Summary of Background Research. 1.2.1 Pre-Contact Period 1.2.1.2 Glacial Ontario and the Palaeo-Indian Period The region in which the study area is situated was first inhabited after the final retreat of the North American Laurentide ice sheet. Initial vegetation of southeastern Ontario, along with the majority of Southern Ontario, was tundra-like. As the average climatic temperature warmed, small groups of Palaeo-Indians entered Southern Ontario (Karrow and Warren, 1990, p.22). The Palaeo-Indian Period is divided into two subsequent cultures: Clovis and Plano (Wright, 1994, p.24). Palaeo-Indians are thought to have been small groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers who depended on naturally available foodstuff such as game or wild plants (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.38). For much of the year, Palaeo-Indians “hunted in small family groups; these would periodically gather into a larger grouping or band during a favourable period in their hunting cycle, such as the annual caribou migration” (Wright, 1994, p.25). Sites in Southern Ontario appear to be small campsites used during travel episodes, and can be found on loamy well-drained soils in an elevated situation which would provide a more comfortable camping location from which to view the surrounding territory (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.50). The artifact assemblage from this period is characterized by fluted and lanceolate stone points, scrapers, and small projectile points produced from specific chert types (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Distinctive dart heads were used to kill game, and knives for butchering and other tasks (Wright, 1994, p.24). These items were created and transported over great distances while following migratory animals within a massive territory.

Archeoworks Inc. 3


1.2.1.2 The Archaic Period As the climate steadily warmed, deciduous trees slowly began to permeate throughout southeastern Ontario, creating mixed deciduous and coniferous forests (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.30). The “Archaic peoples are the direct descendants of Paleoindian ancestors” having adapted to meet new environmental and social conditions (Ellis, 2013, p.41; Wright, 1994, p.25). The Archaic Period is divided chronologically and cultural groups are divided geographically and sequentially. Archaic Aboriginals lived in “hunter-gatherer bands whose social and economic organization was probably characterized by openness and flexibility” (Ellis et al, 1990, p.123). This fluidity creates ‘traditions’ and ‘phases’ which encompass large groups of Archaic Aboriginals that “may not exist in discrete and readily identifiable forms” (Ellis et al, 1990, p.123). Few Archaic sites have faunal and floral preservation and lithic scatters are often the most common Archaic Aboriginal site type (Ellis et al, 1990, p. 123). House structures have “left no trace” due to the high acidic content of Ontario soils (Wright, 1994, p.27). Burial, grave goods and ritual items, although very rare, appear. By the Late Archaic, multiple individuals were buried together suggesting semi-permanent communities were in existence (Ellis, 2013, p.46). Ceremonial and decorative items also appear on Archaic Aboriginal sites through widespread trade networks, such as conch shells from the Atlantic coast and Galena from New York (Ellis, 2013, p.41). Through trade with the northern Archaic Aboriginals situated around Lake Superior, native copper was initially utilized to make hooks, knives but gradually became used for decorative and ritual items (Ellis, 2013, p.42). During the Archaic period, stone points were reformed from the fluted and lanceolate points to stone points with notched bases to be attached to a wooden shaft (Ellis, 2013, p.41). The artifact assemblages from this period is characterized by a reliance on a wide range of lithic raw materials in order to make stone artifacts, the presence of stone tools shaped by grinding and polishing, and an increase in the use of polished stone axes and adze as wood working tools (Ellis et al, 1990, p. 65; Wright, 1994, p.26). Ground-stone tools were also produced from hard stones and reformed into tools and throwing weapons (Ellis, 2013, p.41). The bow and arrow was first used during the Archaic period (Ellis, 2013, p.42). 1.2.1.3. The Woodland Period The Woodland period began in ca. 800 B.C. It is divided chronologically into subsequent stages of cultural development. Early Woodland cultures evolved out of the Late Archaic period. The Woodland period is marked by the use of both hunting and gathering to procure a larger variety of foods, although with an increased reliance on domesticated plants. Pottery (ceramics) first appeared on Woodland Period sites indicative of a successful subsistence pattern that required long-term storage of abundant resources. Furthermore, graves and grave goods gradually became more exotic and frequent, indicating growing complexity and developing trade networks between Great Lakes communities (Bursey et al, 2013a; Spence et al, 1990; Fox, 1990; Ferris and Spence, 1995, p.89). The Early Woodland Period is divided into two complexes: the Meadowood complex (800-450 B.C.) and the Middlesex complex (450-0 B.C.). The Middlesex component appears to be

Archeoworks Inc. 4


restricted to Eastern Ontario, particularly along the St. Lawrence River (Spence et al, 1990, p.141). The Middlesex period “is known almost exclusively from burial components…and some isolated finds also occur along the St. Lawrence River, from Lake Ontario to Quebec City” (Spence et al, 1990, p.138). From 200 B.C. to A.D. 900, during the Middle Woodland Period, the Point Peninsula complex was “distributed throughout south-central and eastern Southern Ontario, the southern margins of the Canadian Shield, the St. Lawrence River down river to Quebec City, most of southeastern Quebec, [and] along the Richelieu River into Lake Champlain” (Spence, et al, 1990, p. 157; Wright, 1999, p. 633). As Point Peninsula sites have been identified throughout much of Southern Ontario, their distribution suggests population increase within adaptive capabilities to reside in various environments (Bursey et al, 2013b). Settlement-subsistence patterns include “large macroband sites on the lakeshore in the spring, summer and fall, with an early emphasis on fish and shellfish giving way, in the fall, to the exploitation of wild rice, deer and nuts. By the late fall, the macrobands dispersed into microbands moving into the interior to winter on stored foods” (Spence et al, 1990, p.164). This settlement-subsistence pattern is conceptual, however, and suffers from an absence of solid data (Spence et al, 1990, p.164). After A.D. 900, during the Late Woodland Period, the Ontario Iroquoian culture flourished throughout much of southern Ontario (Bursey et al, 2013c). Sub-stages during this tradition are divided spatially and chronologically and progressed into the contact period groups of the Late Ontario Iroquois Stage (Williamson, 1990; Dodd et al, 1990). During this sub-stage, the Iroquoian-speaking linguistic group developed, including the Huron (Wendat), Neutral (called Attiewandaron by the Wendat), and Petun (Tionnontaté or Khionontateronon) in Ontario, and the Five Nations of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) of upper New York State, who are located primarily in south and central Ontario (Birch, 2010, p.31). Each group was distinct but shared a similar pattern of life already established by the sixteenth century (Trigger, 1994, p.42). Villages developed as horticulture took on a more central importance in subsistence patterns, particularly the farming of maize, squash, and beans, supplemented by fishing, hunting, and gathering. Most Iroquoian sites were occupied for 10-50 years with minimal reoccupation of the same site (Warrick, 2007, p.127). The village was often located near primary and secondary waterways to optimize its economic and trading capabilities. Intertribal trade consisted of small luxury items that could be carried overland (Trigger, 1994, p.44). 1.2.2 Contact Period From Samuel de Champlain’s visit of the Huron-Wendat territory to the great epidemics of 1630, the Huron-Wendat population was reported to be approximately 30,000 individuals whose territorial homeland, known as Wendake, stretched roughly between the Canadian Shield, Lake Ontario and the Niagara Escarpment (Warrick, 2008, p.12; Heidenreich, 1978, p.369). It is speculated that four tribes, the Attignawantan, Tahontaenrat, Attigneenongnahac, and Arendahronon, amalgamated to form a single Huron-Wendat Confederacy in defense against the continual aggression of the Haudenosaunee (Warrick, 2008, p.11; Trigger, 1994, p.41). Settlement patterns were complex. Village sites were chosen for their proximity to sources of

Archeoworks Inc. 5


“water, arable soils, available firewood, [and] a young secondary forest, [as well as] a defendable position” (Heidenreich, 1978, p.375). Longhouse sizes depended on the size of the extended family that inhabited it; however, archaeological evidence suggests that the average longhouse was 25 feet by 100 feet, with heights about the same as widths (Heidenreich, 1978, p.366). Villages consisted of up to 100 longhouses clustered closely together, and only the largest villages on the frontier were fortified (Heidenreich, 1978, p.377). Subsistence patterns reflect a horticultural diet that was supplemented with fish rather than meat (Heidenreich, 1978, p.377). ‘Slash-and-burn’ farming was used to quickly and efficiently clear trees and brushwood for flour and flint corn fields (Heidenreich, 1978, p.380). These were consistently cultivated until no longer productive, at which point the village was abandoned, an event that occurred about every eight to twelve years (Heidenreich, 1978, p.381). By 1609, Samuel de Champlain had encountered the Huron-Wendat, in particular the Arendahronon. Desiring greater quantities of furs, the French concluded a trading relationship with the Huron-Wendat (Trigger, 1994, p.68; Heidenreich, 1978, p.386). Consequently, the Huron-Wendat became the middlemen for trade goods between the French and their Algonquin, Nippissing, Tionnontaté, and Attiewandaron neighbours. By mid-1620, the Huron-Wendat had exhausted all available pelts in their own hunting territories and opted to trade European goods for tobacco and furs from their neighbours (Trigger, 1994, pp.49-50). During the 1630s, Jesuit missionaries attempted to convert the entire Huron-Wendat Confederacy to Christianity as the initial phase of a missionary endeavour to convert all native people in Southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.51). However, the Jesuits’ presence in the region had become precarious after a series of major epidemics of European diseases that killed nearly two-thirds of the Huron-Wendat population, lowering the total population to approximately 10,000 individuals (Warrick 2008, p.245; Heidenreich, 1978, p.369). These epidemics hit children and elderly the worst. The death of their elders deprived the Wendat of their experienced political, military, and spiritual leaders, leaving them more susceptible to Christian missions and conversion (Trigger, 1994, p.52; Heidenreich, 1978, p.371). By 1645, having grown dependent on European goods and with their territory no longer yielding enough animal pelts, the Haudenosaunee became increasingly aggressive towards the Huron-Wendat Confederacy (Trigger, 1994, p.53). Armed with Dutch guns and ammunition, the Haudenosaunee engaged in warfare with the Confederacy and brutally attacked and destroyed several Huron-Wendat villages throughout Southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.53). After the massacres of 1649-50, the Confederacy dispersed widely through the Great Lakes region. The Haudenosaunee, although their homeland was located south of the Great Lakes, controlled most of Southern Ontario, occupying at “least half a dozen villages along the north shore of Lake Ontario and into the interior” (Schmalz, 1991, p.17). As early as 1653, the Ojibwa of the Anishinaabeg, an Algonquin-speaking linguistic group, wanted control of the land between Lake Huron and Lake Ontario in order to further their role in the fur trade (Johnston, 2004). In 1640, the Jesuit fathers had recorded the name “oumisagai,” or Mississaugas, as the name of the group who resided near the Mississagi River

Archeoworks Inc. 6


on the northwestern shore of Lake Huron. The French, and later English, applied this same designation to all Algonquians settling on the north shore of Lake Ontario (Smith, 2002, p. 107). After a major smallpox epidemic in 1662, the capture of New Netherland by the English in 1664 curtailing access to guns and powder, and a series of successful attacks against the Haudenosaunee by the Ojibwa from 1653 to 1662, the Haudenosaunee dominance in the region began to fail (Warrick, 2008, p.242; Schmalz, 1991, p.20). By 1680, the Ojibwa had begun to settle just north of the evacuated Huron-Wendat territory and with the English entering the fur-trading market, the Ojibwa began to expand into southern Ontario (Gibson, 2006, p. 36; Schmalz, 1991, p.18). The Mississauga moved southward against the Haudenosaunee utilizing Toronto Carrying Place Trail to defeat the Haudenosaunee at the mouth of the Humber River (Gibson, 2006, p. 37; Schmalz, 1991, p.27). In 1701, representatives of several bands within the Ojibwa Nation and the Haudenosaunee assembled in Montreal to participate in Great Peace negotiations, sponsored by the French (Johnston, 2004; Trigger, 2004, p.58). The Mississaugas were granted sole possession of the territory to the north of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, while the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations as the British referred them, retained their territory along the Grand River (Hathaway, 1930, p.433) From 1701 to the fall of New France in 1759, the Ojibwa experienced a “golden age” of trade, holding no conclusive alliance with either the British or the French while maintaining their middle-man position between native groups to the north and in southwestern Ontario (Schmalz, 1991, p. 35). As the Seven Years’ War between the French and British continued in North America, famine, lack of supplies, and disease weakened the Ojibwa bands as well as the French by 1758 (Schmalz, 1991, p.53). In 1763, the Royal Proclamation declared the Seven Years’ War over, giving the British control of New France and creating a western boundary for British colonization. The British were not respected by several Ojibwa bands, because the British did not respect fair trade as the French had, nor Ojibwa occupancy of the land. The Pontiac Uprising, also known as the Beaver Wars, began in the same year (Schmalz, 1991, p.70). Pontiac, an Ottawa-Ojibwa, rallied several bands against British occupation of New France, but many groups also sought to avoid military action (Schmalz, 1991, p.71). After numerous attacks on the British, by 1766, the Pontiac Uprising was ended when a peace agreement with Sir William Johnson, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, was concluded, which mostly depended on the integrity of the British (Schmalz, 1991, p.81). 1.2.3 Settlement History By the end of the 1700s, the Mississaugas claimed portions of Ontario County. After the American War of Independence in the late 1700s, a large number of United Empire Loyalists and American immigrants began to move into southern Ontario, putting greater demand on the quantity of available lands for settlement. In 1787 and 1788, senior officials from the Indian Department met with the Mississaugas bands at both the Carrying Place on the Bay of Quinte and Toronto, in order to acquire land along the northern shores of Lake Ontario (Surtees, 1994, p.107). As a result of these meetings, officials believed that they had successfully obtained and paid for the large portion of land on the north shore of Lake Ontario, extending northward for

Archeoworks Inc. 7


approximately 12 miles, from Trent River in the east to Etobicoke Creek in the west, which would allow settlers to acquire the land from the Crown (Surtees, 1994, p.107). However, documentation which formalized the transaction did not include a description of the area surrendered and the matter of land cessation within Ontario County remained a legal issue until 1923. After the Anishinaabe continually pressured the Federal government to review the land cessation documents for lands south of Lake Simcoe, it became apparent that the land had not been correctly purchased by the British (Surtees, 1994, p.107; Surtees, 1986, p.19). The William’s Treaty provided for the surrender of the last substantial portion of the territory that had not been given up to the government (Surtees, 1986, p.19). The survey of the Geographic Township of Whitby, which covers the present-day municipalities of Whitby and Oshawa, was begun in 1791 and completed in 1795 (Beers, 1877, p.viii). Whitby Township was originally known as Township No. 8 of the Lake Shore townships, later becoming Norwich Township, and then renamed Whitby after an English seaport and market town (Farewell, n.d., p.18; Gardiner, 1899 p.210). Whitby was divided into two separate municipalities in 1857, the eastern portion becoming a separate municipality named East Whitby (Beers, 1877, p. ix; Mika and Mika, 1983, p.129). Small hamlets existed within the Township of Whitby, such as Brooklin, located around the intersection of Winchester Road and Baldwin Street. Initially named Winchester, it was founded by John and Robert Campbell in 1840 after they opened a flour mill on Lynde Creek (Mika and Mika, 1977, p.230; CLOCA, 2008, p.9). In 1845, Baldwin Street, also known as the Whitby-Scugog Plank Road, was built through Winchester and a post office was established. At the time of the establishment of a post office, another village of Winchester existed in eastern Ontario. To avoid duplication of village names, Winchester was renamed Brooklin (Mika and Mika, 1977, p.230). In 1874, the Whitby & Port Perry Railway and a station was completed. The railway’s route through Brooklyn was built with the intention of bringing larger quantities of grain to Port Whitby for export (Cooper, 2008). Brooklin functioned as a milling centre for grinding wheat into flour for the surrounding agricultural lands until well into the twentieth century. 1.2.4 Past Land Use To assess the study area’s potential for the recovery of historic pre-1900 remains, the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario and the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario (see Maps 2-3; Table 1). The study area encompasses part of Lots 22-23, Concession 4; Lots 18-28, Concession 5; Lots 18-31, Concession 6 and; Lots 19-31, Concession 7, in the Historical Township of Whitby, Historical County of Ontario. In 1860, several historic structures situated around the village of Brooklin lay within the study area, but the majority of the study area appears to have been agricultural lands. The Whitby-Scugog Plank Road (present-day Baldwin Road/Highway 12) bisected a portion of the study area, while West Lynde Creek, Lynde Creek and the Oshawa River flowed through parts of the study area. By 1877, the study area primarily encompassed farmland and associated homesteads situated around the village of Brooklin. Furthermore, the Whitby, Port Perry and Lindsay Railway had been completed and traversed a portion of the study area.

Archeoworks Inc. 8


Table 1: Historical structures within the Stage 1 AA Study Area

Concession Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario 4 22 North half G. & W. Haddlesham No structure(s) 4 23 North half W. Law No structure(s) 5 18 North part Geo. Davidson One structure 5 18 Central part Daniel Lamon One structure 5 18 South part John Michael One structure 5 19 All D. Dow No structure(s)

5 20 North of north part Thos. Lamsden No structure(s)

5 20 South of north part Danl. Halliday One structure

5 20 South part D. Dow One structure

5 20 South part Wm. Korr No structure(s)

5 21 West of north part Thos. Lamsden No structure(s)

5 21 East of north part Danl. Halliday One structure

5 21 South half Wm. Korr No structure(s)

5 22 North half Thos. Lamsden No structure(s)

5 22 South half Jackson Halliday No structure(s)

5 23 North half Unreadable No structure(s)

5 23 South half John Korr No structure(s)

5 24 North half Henry Franklin One structure

5 24 South half A.E. Campbell No structure(s)

5 25 North half John Bradley No structure(s) 5 25 South half Jas. Blair No structure(s) 5 26 North part Peter DeLong No structure(s)

5 27 North half P. DeLong No structure(s)

5 27 South part Robt. Holison No structure(s)

5 28 All Calvin Campbell One structure

6 18 South half Bicker & Coulter No structure(s) 6 19 North part Unreadable One structure 6 19 North part Unreadable Uncertain due to map resolution

6 19 South of North half John Blair No structure(s) 6 19 South half Geo. Liddle No structure(s)

6 20 North part Chas Paxton One structure

6 21 North half Chas. Paxton No structure(s)

6 22 North part John Lout No structure(s)

6 22 North part Unreadable No structure(s)

6 23 North part E. Coxwall No structure(s)

6 24 North part Unreadable Uncertain due to map resolution


6 24 South part Unreadable Uncertain due to map resolution

6 25 All Dr. J. Poote No structure(s)

6 26 North part G. Neal No structure(s)

6 26 North Part Wm. Manuel No structure(s)

6 26 South half Geo. Neal One structure

6 27 North half N. Arnall No structure(s)

6 27 South half Jas. Thompson No structure(s)

6 28 North half N. Arnall No structure(s)

6 28 North part (?) Mathesson Uncertain due to map resolution

6 28 South part (?) Mathesson Uncertain due to map resolution

6 28 South part Unreadable One structure

6 29 All Wm. Nichol No structure(s)

6 30 North part Hiram Campbell No structure(s) 6 30 Central part John Campbell No structure(s)

Archeoworks Inc. 9


Concession Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) 6 30 South part R.E. Campbell No structure(s) 6 31 North part Hiram Campbell No structure(s) 6 31 Central part John Campbell No structure(s) 6 31 South part R.E. Campbell No structure(s) 7 19 North half Wm. Hodgson No structure(s)

7 19 South part Joe. Halman One structure

7 20 North part John Calder No structure(s)

7 20 South part Jas. Dryden One structure; school house

7 21 North half John Calder One structure

7 21 South west part Jas. Blair No structure(s)

7 21 South east part Jas. Dryden No structure(s)

7 22 North part Unreadable No structure(s)

7 22 South of North part Sarah Sawyer No structure(s)

7 22 North of South part M. Howland No structure(s)

7 22 South part Unreadable No structure(s)

7 23 North part Solomon Hodgson No structure(s)

7 23 South of North part S. Burrough No structure(s)

7 23 South half Lewis DeHart One structure

7 24 North half Aaron Campbell No structure(s)

7 24 South half Jno. Campbell No structure(s)

7 25 South half Aaron Campbell One structure

7 26 North part J. Pile No structure(s)

7 26 South of north part Robt. Matheson One structure

7 26 North of south part James Pile No structure(s)

7 26 South part Wm. Mathewson One structure

7 27 North part John Burns No structure(s)

7 27 South of north part Andrew Burns No structure(s)

7 27 South part Jas. Burns One structure

7 28 North half John Robinson One structure

7 28 West of South half W. Mas No structure(s)

7 28 East of South half Jas. Burns No structure(s)

7 29 North half Robt. Hutcliff One structure

7 29 South half John Spencer One structure

7 30 North part N. Kerr No structure(s)

7 30 South half Jas. Warren One structure; possibly a church

7 31 South half Jas. Randall No structure(s)

1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario

4 22 North half G. & W. Hoddshaw No structure(s)

4 23 North half T. Arksey One structure

5 18 North part M. Kent No structure(s) 5 18 Central part D. Lamon One structure 5 18 South part J. Michael One structure 5 19 All D. Dow No structure(s)

5 20 North part R. Hoar One structure 5 20 South of north part D. Holliday One structure

5 20 South part J. Kerr No structure(s)

5 20 South part D. Dow One structure

5 21 West of north part A.Kitchen One structure

5 21 East of north part D. Holliday No structure(s)

5 21 South half W. Kerr One structure

5 22 North half A.Kitchen No structure(s)

5 22 South half J. Holliday One structure

Archeoworks Inc. 10


Concession Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) 5 23 North half F.R.B. Hayward No structure(s)

5 23 North part Unlisted No structure(s)

5 23 South half D. Francis One structure; Grist Mill

5 24 North half H. Francis One structure

5 24 South half J. Bradley One structure

5 25 North half J. Bradley One structure

5 25 South part J. Bradley One structure

5 25 South part Unlisted No structure(s)

5 26 North half P. Delong One structure

5 26 South part Dodge One structure

5 27 North half J.A. Delong One structure

5 27 South part J.B. Bickell No structure(s)

5 28 All W. Hall One structure

6 18 South half Unreadable No structure(s)

6 19 North part G. Holman One structure


6 19 South of north part J. Blair Sr. One structure

6 19 South half G. Liddle No structure(s)

6 20 North part John Dryden One structure

6 20 North part J. Blair Jr. No structure(s)

6 21 North half John Dryden No structure(s)

6 22 North part George Ray No structure(s)

6 22 North part J. & J. Croxall No structure(s)

6 23 North part J. Croxall No structure(s)

6 24 North half J. B. Bickell One structure

6 25 North half J. Medland One structure

6 26 All Wm. Maw Est. No structure(s)

6 27 North half N. Arnold No structure(s) 6 27 South half Jas. Thompson One structure

6 28 North part Unreadable One structure

6 28 North part Mrs. H. One structure

6 28 North part N. Arnold One structure

6 28 South part Unreadable One structure

6 28 South part John Thompson No structure(s)

6 29 All W. Nichols One structure

6 30 North half W. Green One structure

6 30 South half B.F. Campbell No structure(s)

6 31 North half W. Green No structure(s)

6 31 South half B.F. Campbell One structure

7 19 North half W. Hodgson No structure(s)

7 19 South half Jas. Dryden No structure(S)

7 19 South part G.M. One structure

7 20 West of north half J. Calder One structure

7 20 East of north half W. Hodgson No structures

7 20 South half Jas. Dryden One structure & a school house

7 21 North half J. Calder No structure(s)

7 21 West of south half S. Thomas One structure

7 21 East of south half Jas. Dryden One structure

7 22 North part J. Burroughs One structure

7 22 North part Widow Sawyer No structure(s)

7 22 North part Unreadable Two structures

7 22 North of south half H. Thomas One structure

Archeoworks Inc. 11


Concession Lot Portion Occupant/Owner Structure(s) 7 22 South of south half J. & J. Croxall Three structures

7 23 North of north half J. Sanderock One structure

7 23 South of north half J. Burrough No structure(s)

7 23 South half J. Rehart Two structures

7 24 North half A.Campbell No structure(s)

7 24 South half J. Campbell No structure(s)

7 25 North part H. Matheson No structure(s)

7 25 South half I.Wilber One structure

7 26 North of north half J. Pile One structure

7 26 South of north half R. Mathewson One structure

7 26 South half J. R. Mathewson One structure

7 27 North part J. Burns Sr. Two structures

7 27 Central part David Burns No structure(s)

7 27 South part John Burns Two structures

7 28 North half J. Robinson One structure

7 28 South part J.B. No structure(s)

7 28 South part R. Maw One structure

7 28 South part David Burns No structure(s) 7 28 South part John Burns No structure(s) 7 29 North half R. Moore One structure

7 29 South half T.H. Spencer Two structures

7 30 North half J.B. Bickell No structure(s)

7 30 South half J. Warren One structure & school house

7 31 South half F. Waring No structure(s)

A total of 24 historic structures, a school house, and a possible church were depicted within the study area in 1860 and an additional 16 historic structures and a school depicted within 300 metres of the study area limits. By 1877, 61 historic homesteads, two school houses, and a Grist Mill were depicted within the study area and an additional 25 historic homesteads and school house is depicted within 300 metres of the study area. Furthermore, the study area encompasses 13 historic settlement roads – Country Lane, Cochrane Street, Ashburn Road, Baldwin Street, Duffs Road, Cedarbrook Trail, Thickson Road, Garrard Road, St. Thomas Street/Anderson Street, Conlin Road, Winchester Road (Highway 7), Columbus Road and Brawley Road – most of which were originally laid out during the survey of the Township of Whitby. Finally, the study area encompasses portions of the historic Port Perry and Lindsay Railway. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers undisturbed lands within 300 metres of early Euro-Canadian settlements and 100 metres of early historic transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes) to be of elevated archaeological potential. Therefore, based on the proximity of several historic structures and transportation routes, elevated potential for the location of Euro-Canadian archaeological resources (pre-1900) within undisturbed portions of the study area can be established.

1.2.5 Present Land Use Lying immediately outside the built-up urban area of Brooklin, the lands within the study area are mainly active agricultural lands, with some wooded and fallow areas found throughout, but

Archeoworks Inc. 12


mainly close to water courses. Farm complexes and rural residences can be found throughout the study area as well. The Eldorado Golf Club is encompassed within the study area.

1.3 Archaeological Context 1.3.1 Designated and Listed Cultural Heritage Resources In an attempt to obtain the most up-to-date an inventory of all designated and listed heritage properties within the Town of Whitby, the municipal planning department (Ashton, 2013) was contacted and confirmed the presence of 20 listed heritage properties and three designated heritage properties within the study area (see Table 2 below, and Map 4). Table 2: Designated and Listed Heritage Properties within the Stage 1 AA Study Area

Municipal Address – Name (Year Built) Status

4710 Anderson Street (c. 1900) Listed

7143 Ashburn Road – John Mathewson House (1864) Ontario Heritage Act designation - Part IV

920 Brawley Road West (c. 1870) Listed

860 Brawley Road West (c. 1915) Listed

8205 Baldwin Street North (c. 1875) Listed; building demolished

5550 Baldwin Street South (c. 1927) Listed; building demolished

7762 Cochrane Street – Thomas House (c. 1867) Listed

7261 Cochrane Street (c. 1867) Listed

840 Columbus Road West (c. 1859) Listed





360 Columbus Road East – Maple Shade Farm (1835) Ontario Heritage Act designation - Part IV

7035 Country Lane (c. 1877) Listed

6472 Country Lane (c. 1915) Listed

5945 Garrard Road (c. 1867) Listed

5515 Garrard Road (c.1855) Listed

7675 Thickson Road North – John Calder House (c. 1856) Ontario Heritage Act designation - Part IV

5675 Thickson Road North (c. 1845) Listed

680 Winchester Road West (c. 1915) Listed

540 Winchester Road West (c. 1880) Listed

700 Winchester Road East (c. 1915) Listed

As the study area limits abut the City of Oshawa boundary, the document entitled, “Inventory of Heritage Properties”, which documents heritage resources within the Oshawa, was also consulted. This confirmed that no structures listed in their inventory fall within 300 metres of the study area (Heritage Oshawa, 2013). 1.3.2 Registered Archaeological Sites In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for this study area, the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the MTCS was consulted. Every archaeological site is registered according to the Borden System, which is a numbering system

Archeoworks Inc. 13


used throughout Canada to track archaeological sites and their artifacts. The study area is located within Borden block AlGr. According to the MTCS (2013), 60 archaeological sites have been registered within a one-kilometre radius of the study area (see Table 3). The 2011 S&G considers undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a registered archaeological site to be of elevated archaeological potential. Given that 40 sites are located within the study area, three within 50 metres of the study area, and nine within 300 metres of the study area, elevated archaeological potential within the study area is established. Table 3: Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area

Borden # Name Cultural Affiliation Type

Sites located within 50 metres of the study area

AlGr-2 Rodd Undetermined Undetermined

AlGr-94 * Euro-Canadian Homestead

AlGr-113 Flint Euro-Canadian Homestead

AlGr-115 Brooklin Meadow Pre-contact Findspot

AlGr-116 Elementary Park Pre-contact Findspot

AlGr-139 Delong 1 * *

AlGr-171 Paxton Euro-Canadian Homestead

AlGr-172 Thorndike Euro-Canadian Homestead

AlGr-187 * Pre-contact Scatter, lithic

AlGr-189 * 19th

century, Late 20th

century Scatter, Euro-Canadian

AlGr-198 Daniel Holliday (Central H7) Euro-Canadian Domestic

AlGr-202 Cruxall Euro-Canadian Farmstead

AlGr-232 Brooklin H1 1870-20th

century Homestead

AlGr-233 Brooklin H2 1840s-1860s Homestead


century Homestead


AlGr-236 Brooklin H5 Mid-19th

century Homestead


century Homestead

AlGr-238 Brooklin H7 1850s-1880s Euro-Canadian Homestead


C. Euro-Canadian Homestead







AlGr-243 Brooklin H12 1840s-1880s Euro-Canadian Homestead


AlGr-245 Brooklin H14 Mid-19th

century Homestead


AlGr-247 Brooklin H17 19th

century, Late 20th

century Homestead

AlGr-248 Brooklin P2 Aboriginal, pre-contact Findspot

AlGr-250 Brooklin P7 Aboriginal Findspot




AlGr-254 Brooklin P11 Aboriginal, pre-contact Campsite



Archeoworks Inc. 14


Borden # Name Cultural Affiliation Type

AlGr-257 Brooklin P15 Aboriginal Findspot



AlGr-263 West H38 Mid-19th

century Homestead


AlGr-90 * Early Archaic findspot

AlGr-112 Brook Late Archaic Findspot

AlGr-180 Carnwith H1 Mid 19th



AlGr-91 * Archaic, Middle Findspot

AlGr-92 * Early Archaic (Nettling) Findspot

AlGr-93 * Euro-Canadian Homestead

AlGr-106 Hunter’s Farm Archaic, Early/Middle Findspot

AlGr-107 Hunter’s Folly Pre-Contact Undetermined

AlGr-188 * Euro-Canadian, mid-19th

century Scatter, ceramic

AlGr-205 Highway 7 H1 Mid 19th


AlGr-216 Highway 7 H2 Late 19th

C.-20th



Sites located within one kilometre of the study area

AlGr-9 Hogarth Undetermined Undetermined

AlGr-221 West Link P1 Archaic, early Undetermined

AlGs-376 * Late Woodland Scatter

AlGs-386 Highway 7 H3 Early to Mid-19th

C. Euro- Canadian

Homestead

AlGs-427 * 19th

-Late 20th

C. Euro-Canadian Scatter

AlGs-437 Brooklin H16 Euro-Canadian *

AlGs-438 Brooklin P14 Aboriginal, pre-contact No information

AlGs-440 * Mid-Late 19th

C. Euro-Canadian Scatter

*indicates information not available

Having noted the presence of these sites in relation to the study area, it is useful to place them in the proper context by reviewing the cultural history of occupation in Southern Ontario provided in Table 4 below. This data provides an understanding of the potential cultural activity that may have occurred within the study area. Table 4: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario

Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes

PALEO-INDIAN

Early Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield 9000-8500 BC Big game hunters. Fluted projectile points

Late Holcombe, Hi-Lo, Lanceolate 8500-7500 BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands. Lanceolate projectile points

ARCHAIC

Early Side-notched, corner notched, bifurcate-base

7800-6000 BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands; first notched and stemmed points, and ground stone celts.

Middle Otter Creek, Brewerton 6000-2000 BC Transition to territorial settlements

Archeoworks Inc. 15


Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes

Late Narrow, Broad and Small Points Normanskill, Lamoka, Genesee, Adder Orchard etc.

2500-500 BC More numerous territorial hunter-gatherer bands; increasing use of exotic materials and artistic items for grave offerings; regional trade networks

WOODLAND

Early Meadowood, Middlesex 800BC-0BC Introduction of pottery, burial ceremonialism; panregional trade networks

Middle Point Peninsula, Saugeen, Jack’s Reef Corner Notched

200 BC-AD 900 Cultural and ideological influences from Ohio Valley complex societies; incipient horticulture

Late Algonquian, Iroquoian AD 900-1250 Transition to village life and agriculture

Algonquian, Iroquoian AD 1250-1400 Establishment of large palisaded villages

Algonquian, Iroquoian AD 1400-1600 Tribal differentiation and warfare

HISTORIC

Early Huron, Neutral, Petun, Odawa, Ojibwa

AD 1600 – 1650 Tribal displacements

Late Six Nations Iroquois, Ojibwa, Mississauga

AD 1650 – 1800s Migrations and resettlement

Euro-Canadian AD 1780 - present European immigrant settlements

1.3.3 Previous Archaeological Assessments In order to further establish the archaeological context of the project area, reports documenting previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of, or immediately adjacent (i.e., within 50 metres) of the project area were consulted. A map of the limits of these assessments is provided in Map 5. 34 reports were identified, all of which were previous assessments associated with other development projects:

1. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of Highway 7, From Brock Road to Highway 12 (New Directions Archaeology Ltd., 2006)

New Directions Archaeology Ltd. conducted a Stage 1 AA of the Highway 7 corridor from Brock Road to Highway 12 in 2006 and identified moderate to high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains within undisturbed portions of the study corridor. This was based on the documented presence of two historical structures in close proximity to the study corridor, and the bisection of several watercourses with the Highway 7 study corridor. Additionally, a total of 15 archaeological sites had been previously encountered within a two-kilometre radius of the study corridor, which also helped establish the moderate to high potential for the discovery of additional archaeological remains in the immediate area. Therefore, a Stage 2 AA was recommended along the Highway 7 study corridor.

2. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) of: Highway 7 Widening From Brock Road to Approximately 200m East of Highway 7/12, GWP 2110-05-00, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Class EA, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2009a)

Archeoworks Inc. 16


In 2008, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 2 AA of an approximately 11.5 kilometre stretch of Highway 7 (Winchester Road) from Highway 7/12 to Brock Road, located at the southern edge of the current study area. During the Stage 2 assessment, a total of 19 historic Euro-Canadian sites were discovered: H1 through H19. This report documents fieldwork conducted within 50 metres of the current study area; H1 and H2 were located within 300 metres from the current study area limits and H3-H19 are located greater than 300 metres from the current study area limits and therefore represent no concern.

3. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the: Proposed Residential Subdivision Development Within Lot 26, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Whitby, Former County of Ontario, Now Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., unpublished)

Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 2 AA for the proposed subdivision development within part of Lot 26, Concession 6, involving eight rural residential and agricultural parcels. This subject area falls within the current study area. One pre-contact lithic findspot and three small historic, Euro-Canadian collections were discovered. Given the non-diagnostic and isolated nature of the lithic find, no further work is being recommended for this site. The three Euro-Canadian artifact collections yielded less than 20 pre-1900 artifacts, and are therefore not considered to have high cultural heritage value or interest. No further work is being recommended for these sites.

4. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of: 625 Columbus Road West within Part of Lots 27 & 28, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2012b)

Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 1-2 AA for the proposed subdivision development at 625 Columbus Road West, within part of Lots 27 and 28, Concession 6. This subject area falls within the current study area. One historic, Euro-Canadian collection was discovered and identified as the Arnold Site (AlGr-318), representing an occupation period of ca. 1850 and 1870. The site was considered to have cultural heritage value, therefore the site was recommended to be subjected to Stage 3 AA.

5. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) for the: Brooklin North Landowner’s Group Study Area, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2007a)

In January 2007, Archeoworks Inc. undertook a Stage 1 AA of 12 parcels of land totalling 656.27 hectares of landowner holdings. The Stage 1 AA involved a review of lands within the current study area. This assessment established high archaeological potential for those lands that had not been subjected to previous archaeological assessment. Therefore, it was recommended that, due to the established high archaeological potential, a Stage 2 AA be undertaken in all undisturbed locations within each parcel. The Stage 2 AA was addressed by Archeoworks Inc.

Archeoworks Inc. 17


6. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA): Brooklin North Landowner’s Group Study Area, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc. 2011).

Between 2007 and 2011, Archeoworks Inc. undertook the Stage 2 AA of all twelve parcels within the landowners’ holdings, all of which fall within the study area limits. The assessment resulted in the discovery of a total of 12 Aboriginal findspots (P1 through P10, P12 and P13), one Aboriginal lithic scatter (P11) and 17 historic, Euro-Canadian collections (H1 through 17) within the subject area. Based on the archaeological significance of nine of the historic, Euro-Canadian sites (Brooklin H2, H4, H5, H7, and H12-H16) and one Aboriginal lithic scatter (Brooklin P11), further Stage 3 investigations were recommended at these site locations. All these sites are located within the current study area limits. The remaining sites were determined to be unlikely to contribute to a better understanding of early settlement within the Whitby area, and, as such, no further work was recommended for them.

7. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Matthewson (AlGr-236) Site within Lot 26, Concession 7, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2012a)

In August 2012, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 3 AA on the H5 (AlGr-236) site, now called the Matthewson Site, which is located within the current study area limits. The artifacts recovered from the Stage 3 AA span most of the nineteenth century, although the majority of the artifacts can be assigned a ca. 1850s-1870s timeframe. Archival research determined that the Matthewson’s occupation of the site area occurred from 1837 to 1877 and, thus, this collection of material can be connected to the Matthewson’s settlement on the property. The Matthewson Site was determined to have cultural heritage value, and was recommended to undergo Stage 4 mitigations prior to development impacts.

8. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of: The Brooklin H15 Site (AlGr-246) within Part of the Southern Half of Lot 22, Concession 7, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks, 2013)

In April of 2011, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 3 AA on the H15 (AlGr-246) site, which is located within the current study area limits. A lithic component of the site was located, representing a very ephemeral campsite, with an artifact count per unit of under 10 for all of the units excavated. The Euro-Canadian component of this site represents a ca. 1830 to 1845 Euro-Canadian archaeological resource with cultural heritage value or interest. Since this site cannot be avoided or protected, it was recommended to undergo a comprehensive Stage 4 archaeological salvage excavation. Since the lithic component of the site does not meet the criterion stipulated by the MTCS to be considered to have significant cultural heritage value, Stage 4 mitigation of impacts is not required for this component of the site.

9. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the 407 East Individual Environmental Assessment, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario - 2008 RESULTS (Archaeological Services Inc. and URS Canada Ltd, 2010)

Archeoworks Inc. 18


Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) and URS Canada Ltd. (URS) were retained to conduct a Stage 2 AA for the three sections of the 407 East Environmental Assessments (EA) in the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Stage 2 AA was conducted on the Technically Preferred Route (TPR) on any accessible lands where there was potential for archaeological sites and where field conditions were suitable. This report discusses fieldwork conducted within the current study area limits as well as within 50 metres. Of the archaeological resources encountered during the 2008 assessments, three sites are located within the current study area: West Site P3 (AlGr-187), West Site H2 (AlGr-189) and Daniel Holliday (Central H7) (AlGr-198); and one within 50 metres of the study area limits (Site West H17- AlGr-188). Stage 3 assessments were recommended for the West Site P3 (AlGr-187), West Site H2 (AlGr-189), Daniel Holliday (Central H7) (AlGr-198) and Site West H17 (AlGr-188).

10. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment: Daniel Holliday Site (AlGr-198), Highway 407 East, part of Lot 30, Concession V, Geographic Township of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archaeological Services Inc., 2011)

In July of 2009, ASI conducted a Stage 3 AA on the Daniel Holliday Site (AlGr-198), which is located within the current study area limits. The artifacts recovered from the Stage 3 AA represent a mid-to-late nineteenth century Euro-Canadian archaeological resource. Archival research determined that the Daniel Holliday site (AlGr-198) corresponds with the homestead established by the Holliday family between 1837 and 1884. This occupation was part of the earliest inland settlement of Whitby Township and the area surrounding the village of Brooklin. If the Daniel Holliday site (AlGr-198) cannot be protected within the final detailed design for Highway 407, the site must be subject to a comprehensive Stage 4 archaeological salvage excavation.

11. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the 407 East Individual Environmental Assessment, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario - 2009 RESULTS (Archaeological Services Inc. and URS Canada Ltd, 2011)

ASI and URS were retained to conduct a Stage 2 AA for the three sections of the 407 East Environmental Assessment (EA) in the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. The Stage 2 AA was conducted on the Technically Preferred Route (TPR) on newly accessible lands where there was potential for archaeological sites and where field conditions were suitable. This report discusses fieldwork conducted within and within 50 metres of the current study area limits. The 2009 Stage 2 AA resulted in additional work on the West H2 (AlGr-189) Site around the house, and the discovery of the Central H10 (AlGr-139) and Central 13 (AlGr-208) sites which fall within the current study area. Stage 3 AAs were recommended for all three sites.

12. Stage 4 Mitigation Report: The Maarse Site (AlGr-189) within part of Lot 28, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2010g)

From April to June 2010 Archeoworks Inc. undertook Stage 4 mitigation of the historic, Euro-Canadian site West H2 (AlGr-189), known as the Maarse Site. The artifact assemblage supports an occupation date of the site from the mid- to late nineteenth century into the twentieth

Archeoworks Inc. 19


century, with the bulk of the artifacts falling into a post-1870s time period. Most of the historic materials retrieved from the excavated units and features can be attributed to William Lawrence’s use of the site, from the 1870s onwards. With Stage 4 excavations complete, the Maarse Site (AlGr-189) is considered free of further archaeological concern.

13. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment: Delong 1 Site (AlGr-139), Highway 407 East, Part of Lot 26, Concession 5, Geographic Township of East Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archaeological Services Inc., 2012a)

In June 2012, ASI conducted a Stage 3 AA on the Delong 1 Site (AlGr-139), which is located in the current study area limits. The artifacts recovered from the Stage 3 AA represent a homestead established in the 1830s. As the time span of occupation for this site entirely predates 1870, it is considered to have significant cultural heritage value. Based on previous Stage 2 assessment it is clear that this site extends north and east beyond the Technically Preferred Route (TPR) and into the adjacent property and therefore the balance of the site outside the TPR boundary should be protected during construction. Since this site cannot be avoided and protected it must be subject to a comprehensive Stage 4 archaeological salvage excavation. The following recommendations apply only to the area of the site within the TPR. The area of the site outside of the TPR (to the northeast) is privately owned and will not be impacted by proposed construction.

14. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment: Thomas Moore Site (AlGr-208), Highway 407 East, Part of Lot 18, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Revised Report. (Archaeological Services Inc., 2012b).

The Stage 3 AA of the AlGr-208 Site (renamed the Thomas Moore Site) resulted in the recovery of a total of 39 Euro-Canadian artifacts, which albeit being a small sample, suggests that the site likely represents an early 19th century occupation that began as early as the 1820s, with a terminal date of 1840 due to the absence of ironstone. With a timeframe of occupation mainly dating to before 1870 and with a significant pre-1830 component, Stage 4 mitigation of development impacts was recommended, as per Section 3.4.2 Standard 1.a of the 2011 S&G. Given the nature of the proposed construction, it was deemed that avoidance and protection was not possible for the Thomas Moore Site. It was recommended that a Stage 4 site excavation occur within the portion of the Thomas Moore Site lying within the TPR limits, with the rest of the site being protected from alteration during construction.

15. Stage 4 Partial Excavation of the: Thomas Moore Site (AlGr-208) as Part of the Highway 407 East Extension – Phase 1, Within Lot 18, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Whitby, Former County of Ontario, Now Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., unpublished)

In August 2013, the portion of the Thomas Moore Site that lay within the Highway 407 East Extension’s project area limits was subjected to Stage 4 site excavation, which entailed the use of machinery to remove topsoil from an area measuring roughly 925 square metres. Seven subsurface cultural features were identified, only two of which yielded a minimal number of

Archeoworks Inc. 20


artifacts. Analysis of the artifacts recovered (albeit being small samples) indicate an earlier timeframe for the creation of Features 3 (ash layer probably resulting from potash production) and 5 (wood-lined ash pit, dating to 1812-1830) compared to timeframes suggested by finds previous stages of fieldwork, placing the finds during the time of ownership by the original land grantee, Ramsay Crooks (1798-1832). On the basis of the completed Stage 4 excavation, it was recommended that the portion of the Thomas Moore Site encompassed within the Highway 407 East Extension project area limits that has been subjected to excavation be considered free of further archaeological consideration. However, the balance of the Thomas Moore site (AlGr-208) which lies outside the project area limits should be avoided during grading and soil disturbing activities.

16. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (Property Assessment) for the Highway 407 East, Owner's Engineer Assignment, Phase One (407 ETR to Simcoe Street) Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario - 2010 RESULTS (Archaeological Services Inc., 2011)

ASI conducted a Stage 2 AA of Phase One of the Highway 407 East extension, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. The Stage 2 AA was conducted on the TPR on newly accessible lands where there was potential for archaeological sites and where field conditions were suitable. This report discusses fieldwork conducted within and within 50 metres of the current study area limits. In 2010, Stage 2 AAresulted in the discovery of West H38 (AlGr-263) which falls within the current study area. A Stage 3 AA was recommended for West H38 (AlGr-263).

17. Stage 2 Property Assessment: Highway 407 East Owner’s Engineer Assignment, Phase One (407 ETR to East of Harmony Road) City of Pickering, Town of Whitby, and City of Oshawa (Former Townships of Pickering, Whitby, and East Whitby in County of Ontario), Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario – 2011 RESULTS (Archaeological Services Inc., 2012).

ASI conducted a Stage 2 AA for the Highway 407 East, Phase One, in the Region of Durham, Ontario. Stage 2 AA was conducted on the TPR on newly accessible lands where there was potential for archaeological sites and where field conditions were suitable. This report discusses newly accessible lands where there was potential for archaeological sites and where field conditions were suitable, specifically those within West 2 Road Segment and West Link Road Segments, which fall within and within 50 metres of the current study area limits. During this assessment, five sites were located and fall within the study area limits: CH28 (AlGr-298), CP18 (AlGr-300), CH29 (AlGr-299), WH53 (AlGr-288), and CH32. No further work was recommended at CH32, while the other four are recommended for further Stage 3 AA.

18. Stage 1 to 3 Archaeological Assessment of Part Lot 25, Concession 6, Whitby Township,

Regional Municipality of Durham (Northeastern Archaeological Associates, 2000). Northeastern Archaeological Associates conducted a Stage 1 and 2 AA of an approximately 63-hectare parcel located within the northern part of Lot 25, Concession 6. This subject area falls within the current study area. Three sites were located: the Euro-Canadian Medland Site (AlGr-114) and the prehistoric AlGr-115 and AlGr-116 sites. A Stage 3 AA was undertaken on all three

Archeoworks Inc. 21


sites; the Medland Site was absent of significant and early 19th century deposits and AlGr-115 and AlGr-116 consisted of a single Onondaga chert flake found at each location. It was determined that these sites were not significant enough to warrant further testing, and the entire subject property was recommended free of further archaeological concern.

19. Stage 1 to 3 Archaeological Assessment of Part Lot 23, Concession 6, Whitby Township, Regional Municipality of Durham (Northeastern Archaeological Associates, 2002).

Northeastern Archaeological Associates conducted a Stage 1 to 3 AA of an approximately 30-hectare parcel located within the northern part of Lot 23, Concession 6. This subject area falls within the current study area. A single positive test-pit contained an Onondaga chert wedge or bipolar core and although no additional close-interval testing yielded more artifacts, a Stage 3 was undertaken. Four one-metre square test units were excavated with no further recoveries and therefore, it was determined that the site was not significant enough to warrant further testing, and the entire subject property was recommended free of further archaeological concern.

20. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) of: Carnwith North Lands, Part of Lot 24,

Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham. (Archeoworks Inc., 2007b).

In 2007, Archeoworks Inc. was retained to conduct a Stage 1-2 AA of a parcel located on Lot 24, Concession 6 in Whitby. This subject area falls within the current study area. The Stage 1 research identified significant potential for the recovery of both Aboriginal and historic, Euro-Canadian archaeological remains within undisturbed portions of the overall study area. The Stage 2 assessment resulted in the recovery of a small collection of Euro-Canadian artifacts, the Carnwith Site (AlGr-180), which falls within 50 metres of the current study area limits. A Stage 3 AA was recommended for the site.

21. Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment and Stage 4 Mitigation of the Carnwith Site (AlGr-180), Part of Lot 24, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2009b)

Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 3 AA of the Carnwith Site in 2009. Artifactual analysis supported an occupation period of the mid-1840s into the 1870s, with the bulk of the artifacts falling in the 1850s to 1860s range. A Stage 4 excavation was carried out given the prevalence of pre-1870 artifacts. It became apparent that the site had been subjected to prior disturbance, given that the archaeological assemblage contained little to no provenience and no domestic features were identified. As such, with excavations complete, the Carnwith Site (AlGr-180) was interpreted to be the disturbed remains of an original historic site, and was recommended to be considered free of further archaeological consideration.

Archeoworks Inc. 22


22. The Archaeological Assessment of Brookvalley Holdings Ltd., Part Lot 26, Concession 6, Town of Brooklin, RM of Durham (Archaeological Services Inc., 1997).

ASI conducted an AA on 74.9 hectares within part of Lot 26, Concession 6, which falls within the limits of the current study area. During the field research, a total of five sites were located: Prehistoric sites AlGr-90 (which falls within 50 metres of the current study area), AlGr-91, and AlGr-92 and historic sites AlGr-93 (which falls within 300 metres of the current study area limits) and AlGr-94 (which falls within the current study area limits). Given the isolated nature of the finds associated with the prehistoric sites, no further work was recommended. Given the late Euro-Canadian component of the historic sites, further investigation will not increase the understanding of early settlement in the Village of Brooklin and as such, were recommended to be considered free of further archaeological concern. The balance of Brookvalley Holdings Limited lands was also considered free of any further archaeological concern.

23. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Brookvalley Phase 6 and Annex Lands

Subdivision 18T-970223, part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 6 and Part of the Road Allowance Between Lots 18 and 19, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2005)

Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 1-2 AA on approximately 95 acres of land within parts of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 6 which fall within the current study area. Two Euro-Canadian sites, H1 (AlGr-171) and H2 (AlGr-172) were encountered during the Stage 2 AA and further work was recommended to delineate the respective sites’ limits, functions and affiliations.

24. Stage 3 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Paxton Site (AlGr-171), Within the Brookvalley Phase 6 and Annex Lands, Subdivision 18T-970223, Part of Lot 20, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2006)

Archeoworks Inc. was retained to conduct a Stage 3 AA on site H1 (AlGr-171), now referred to as the Paxton Site. This site falls within the current study area. A total of 893 domestic artifacts were recovered from seven test units. Given the option to protect the Paxton Site was not feasible, the site was recommended to be subjected to comprehensive salvage excavation.

25. Stage 4 Archaeological Mitigation of the Paxton Site: AlGr-171, Lot 20, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2006)

In July 2005, a total of 23 features were uncovered, yielding 3275 domestic artifacts associated with a continuous occupation from the 1850s to mid-20th century of Charles Paxton and John Dryden. The features excavated were that of the stone house foundation of mortared stones, well, post moulds and refuse dump. On the basis of the results of the complete Stage 4 mitigation and extensive artifactual analysis outlined in this report, the Paxton Site (AlGr-171) was recommended to be deemed free of further archaeological consideration.

Archeoworks Inc. 23


26. Stage 4 Archaeological Mitigation of: the Thorndike Site (AlGr-172), Lot 19, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2006)

This Stage 4 AA was conducted after the completion of the Stage 3 AA which determined further archaeological investigations were to occur on H2 (AlGr-172), now referred to as the Thorndike Site. This site is located within the current study area. From July to September 2005, a total of seven features were found, including two privies or outhouses, and a post mould. Archival research indicates that this corresponds with roughly the first two decades of the Holman family’s occupation and/or use of the site, which spanned from 1855 to 1887. There is little to no artifactual evidence left behind by the Holman family to suggest that they lived on the site after ca. 1875, though they seem to have held onto the land for another decade or so after this date. The site was likely used for agricultural rather than domestic, purposes. The bulk of the artifacts in the site’s assemblage were accumulated during the first decade or so of the site’s use as a homestead. On the basis of the results of the complete Stage 4 mitigation and extensive artifactual analysis outlined in this report, the Thorndike Site (AlGr-172) was recommended to be deemed clear of further archaeological consideration.

27. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of: The Proposed Roybrook Farm Subdivision, part of Lot 24, Concession 5, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archeoworks Inc., 2004)

In the fall of 2004, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 1-2 AA for the proposed Roybrook Farm subdivision comprised of 20 acres within part of Lot 24, Concession 5. This subject area falls within the current study area. Archaeological potential was determined based on proximity to registered archaeological sites, water sources, the study area’s physiography and review of the historic atlas. During the Stage 2, it was determined that no archaeological resources were located within the study area and as such, the entire subject lands were recommended to be considered free from archaeological concern.

28. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, Part Lots 21 and 22, Concession 5, Town of

Whitby, 18T-94010 (Northeastern Archaeological Associates, 1997) In the late summer of 1997, Northeastern Archaeological Associates conducted a Stage 1 and 2 AA for the proposed subdivision 18T-94010 of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 5. A portion of this subject area falls within the current study area limits. Archaeological potential was determined based on proximity to two registered archaeological sites within a two-kilometre radius. Four artifacts were recovered during the close interval surveying as well as four test units were dug at these localities. Locality one was designated as AlGr-106, which falls with 300 metres of the current study area limits. There does not appear to be any activity area of any size present and the entire subject lands is considered free from archaeological concern.

29. The 2005 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Anderson Property, Lot 23, Concession 5, Plan 40R-12227, Part 2, Town of Whitby, Durham Regional Municipality, Ontario(D. R. Poulton and Associates Inc. 2005)

Archeoworks Inc. 24


In 2005, D.R. Poulton and Associates conducted a Stage 1 AA of the Anderson Property located at the northwest corner of Anderson Street and Conlin Road. This report encompasses lands within the current study area limits. This report determined archaeological potential based on proximity to known archaeological sites, review of historical atlases, and the physiography of the subject area. Besides minor disturbances (alignments of the Brooklin Trunk Sewer and the abandoned railway), virtually all of the Anderson property is considered to have moderate to high potential to locate both aboriginal and historical archaeological resources. A detailed Stage 2 archaeological assessment is recommended within the subject area limits.

30. “Stage 1 & 2 AA for Highway 7/12 & Columbus Road Intersection Widening, Town of

Whitby, RM of Durham WP 2055-03-00” (Parslow, 2008). This report discusses the Cruxall Site (AlGr-202) which falls within the current study area. In an attempt to adhere to Section 7.5.8, Standard 4 of the 2011 S&G, the consulting firm, as well as the MTCS, were contacted in order to obtain copies of the report listed above. No response was received at the time of report completion.

31. Stage 1 and 2 AA Background Research and Property Survey Hydro One Networks Inc.

Transmission Tower Modifications for 407 East Extension Class EA Regional Municipality of Durham (Archaeological Services Inc. 2012)

In an attempt to adhere to Section 7.5.8, Standard 4 of the 2011 S&G, the consulting firm, as well as the MTCS, were contacted in order to obtain copies of the report listed above. No response was received at the time of report completion.

32. Archaeological Survey in Selected Townships Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario, MCC (Arthur C. Roberts, 1978)

This report discusses the discovery of the Rodd Site (AlGr-2) which falls within the current study area. In an attempt to adhere to Section 7.5.8, Standard 4 of the 2011 S&G, the MTCS was contacted in order to obtain copies of the report listed above. No response was received at the time of report completion.

33. PRELIMINARY REPORT: Stage 1 and 2 A. A. of Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-97023, Part of

Lots 19 & 20, Conc. 6 (Formerly Township of Whitby, County of Ontario) Now in the Town of Whitby, R. M. of Durham, Ontario" (Archaeological Services Inc., 1999)

This report discusses the discovery of the Flint Site (AlGr-113), which falls within the study area, and the Brook Site (AlGr-112), which falls within 50 metres of the study area. In an attempt to adhere to Section 7.5.8, Standard 4 of the 2011 S&G, the consulting firm, as well as the MTCS, were contacted in order to obtain copies of the report listed above. No response was received at the time of report completion.

Archeoworks Inc. 25


34. Stage 3-4 Excavation of the Flint Site (AlGr-113), Draft Plan Subdivision 18T-97023, Part of Lot 20, Concession 6,Formerly in the Township of Whitby, Now the Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario" (Archaeological Services Inc., 1999)

In an attempt to adhere to Section 7.5.8, Standard 4 of the 2011 S&G, the consulting firm, as well as the MTCS, were contacted in order to obtain copies of the report listed above. No response was received at the time of report completion. 1.3.4 Physical Features An investigation of the study area’s physical features was conducted to aid the researcher in developing an argument for archaeological potential based on the environmental conditions of the study area. Environmental factors such as close proximity to water, soil type, and nature of the terrain, for example, can be used as predictors to determine where human occupation may have occurred in the past. Nearly all of the study area is situated within the South Slope physiographic region of Southern Ontario. The South Slope is the southern part of the Oak Ridges Moraine, and includes the strip south of the Peel Plain, extending from the Niagara Escarpment to the Trent River. The land within the former counties of Ontario and Durham is drumlinized, with the drumlins being long, thin, scattered, and pointing directly up the slope. Streams flow directly down the slope, causing east-west sideroads to cross a succession of valleys which were cut by these water courses. Some of the region’s soils have proven excellent for agricultural use since the nineteenth century (Chapman and Putnam, 1984, pp.172-174).

In terms of archaeological potential, potable water is a highly important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. As water sources have remained relatively stable in Southern Ontario since post-glacial times, proximity to water can be regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. Indeed, distance from water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of site location. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers undisturbed lands in proximity to a water source to be of elevated archaeological potential. Hydrological features such as lakes, rivers, creeks, swamps, and marshes would have helped supply plant and food resources to the surrounding area, and consequently support high potential for locating archaeological resources within 300 metres of their limits. The study area is mostly located within the Lynde Creek watershed, and numerous rivers and creeks flow through and near to the study area, including Lynde Creek and Oshawa Creek, and many smaller tributaries (many of the larger watercourses can be seen in Map 1). Therefore, undisturbed lands within 300 metres of these water sources are considered to be of elevated archaeological potential. 1.3.5 Current Land Conditions The study area is composed of parcels of land surrounding the Village of Brooklin (see Map 1). While the Village of Brooklin is a relatively developed region, the study area is rural in character and includes of a mixture of agricultural, fallow and pasture fields, woodlots, farm complexes, rural residential lots and valleylands. One historical cemetery, Pioneer Baptist Cemetery, lies just outside the eastern boundary of the study area (see Section 3.2).

Archeoworks Inc. 26


A review of aerial photographs taken in 1954 and satellite imagery taken in 2009, reveals that since 1954, the subject lands have retained much of their overall rural, agriculture character (see Maps 6-7). The most significant difference between 1954 and to present day is substantially more tree coverage within the study area. In 1954, tree coverage surrounding creeks and rivers and on farmland was thoroughly removed. There are also some minor differences in road alignments between 1954 and the present, including Baldwin Street. The alignments of Highway 12, Garden Street, Thickson Road and Baldwin Street North has been altered slightly. Finally, few additional structures appear to have been constructed, such as the one at the corner of Anderson Street and Conlin Road, which were not in existence in 1954. 1.3.6 Date(s) of Fieldwork

The Stage 1 AA property inspection of the, illustrated in Maps 8-9, was undertaken on September 18th, 2013. The weather and ground conditions were conducive to identifying features and assessing the land’s archaeological potential.

1.4 Confirmation of Archaeological Potential Based on the information gathered from the background research documented in the preceding section, potential for the recovery of archaeological resources within the study area limits is established. Features contributing to archaeological potential are summarized in Appendix B.

2.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION This property inspection was conducted in compliance with the standards set forth in Section 1.2 of the 2011 S&G, published by the MTCS. The inspection was carried out through random spot-checking, providing sufficient coverage to identify the presence or absence of archaeological potential. Photographic images of the study area are presented within Appendix C - Images. Location and orientation information associated with all photographs taken in the field is provided within Map 8. The results of this property inspection are detailed below.

Archeoworks Inc. 27


3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS In combination with data gathered from background research (see Sections 1.2 and 1.3) and the property inspection, accurate identification of archaeological potential was achieved.

3.1 Previously Surveyed Areas Background research has revealed that significant portions of the study area have already been subjected to various stages of AA by different consulting firms (see Map 5). Those areas which have been assessed and have been deemed clear of archaeological potential by the MTCS will not require further Stage 2 AA. These previously assessed locations that do not require further work within the study area are marked blue in Map 9.

3.2 Identified Cemeteries The eastern extent of the study area along Columbus Road East is located adjacent to the Pioneer Baptist Cemetery (see Map 9). Burials in nineteenth century cemeteries were not highly regulated, often employing markers of little substance that may have since disappeared. Thus, if this area is to be impacted by construction, following the Stage 2 archaeological investigation of the area, a Stage 3 investigation, involving mechanical topsoil stripping will be required within the 10 metre swath of land extending from the current cemetery boundaries to avoid disturbance to any potential grave shafts that may be present.

3.3 Identified Deep and Extensive Disturbances The study area was evaluated for extensive disturbances that have removed archaeological potential. Disturbances may include but are not limited to: grading below topsoil, quarrying, building footprints or sewage and infrastructure development. Section 1.3.2 of the 2011 S&G includes infrastructure development among those “features indicating that archaeological potential has been removed.” Identified disturbances include: paved roadways and associated gravel shoulder, driveways, multi-use trails, road embankments and ditches, culverts, built structures (i.e., residential, farming, and commercial structures), landscaping (i.e., grading and leveling activities), above- and below-ground utilities, and an area of gravel fill (see Images 1-9). The construction, development, and/or activities associated with these disturbed features, would have involved intrusive soil-grading operations which would have caused extensive and deep disturbance to any archaeological resources that could have been present in the ground, thus resulting in the removal of archaeological potential within their footprints. Therefore, it is recommended that these areas be exempt from further assessment. However it must be noted that the limits of the disturbed areas (marked in red within Map 9) are only provisional, and that the Stage 2 AA field survey will document the exact extent of these disturbances.

Archeoworks Inc. 28


3.4 Areas of No or Low Archaeological Potential The study area was also evaluated for physiographic features of no or low archaeological potential. These usually include but are not limited to: permanently wet areas, exposed bedrock, and steep slopes (greater than 20o) except in locations likely to contain pictographs or petroglyphs. An evaluation of the study area revealed the presence of several small ponds and watercourses (see Images 10-11). These physiographic features are marked in cyan on Map 9.

3.5 Areas of Archaeological Potential Portions of the study area that have only been subjected to Stage 1 AA, have not been previously assessed, do not contain identified disturbances, and are not areas of low archaeological potential are still considered to have archaeological potential. Areas which still contain archaeological potential include, but are not limited to:, undisturbed areas of heavy brush and weed growth, treed and/or grassed margins outside the paved road alignments; residential lots that had already existed prior to the 1954 aerial photograph (and therefore no extensive disturbance has been observed), woodlots, fallow areas, pasture lands, a golf course (Eldorado Golf Club), and active agricultural fields. These areas which require a Stage 2 AA are marked yellow within Map 9 (see Images 10, 12-13, and 15-19).

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are presented:

1. Areas which have undergone extensive and deep soil disturbance, as identified within Map 9 (in red), are considered to have had their archaeological potential removed. It is therefore recommended that these areas be exempt from further assessment.

2. Areas which have been identified as having low or no archaeological potential, as identified within Map 9 (in cyan), are recommended to be exempt from further assessment.

3. Portions of the study area that have been subjected to previous AAs and accepted by the MTCS as being free of further archaeological concern (see Section 1.3.2, Map 9, marked in blue) will not require further Stage 2 AA.

4. Should construction activities occur within 10 metres of the Pioneer Baptist Cemetery,

following the Stage 2 archaeological investigation of this area, a Stage 3 investigation involving mechanical topsoil stripping will be required within the 10 metre swath of land

Archeoworks Inc. 29


extending from the current cemetery boundaries to avoid disturbance to any potential grave shafts that may be present.

5. All undisturbed areas which contain archaeological potential must be subjected to Stage 2 AA employing either pedestrian or test pit archaeological survey at five-metre intervals. Where pedestrian survey is required, such as the open agricultural/fallow fields and pasture lands, these areas must be ploughed and subjected to appropriate weathering requirements prior to field investigation, in accordance with Section 2.1.1 of the 2011 S&G. Where ploughing in advance of Stage 2 pedestrian survey will not be possible, such as woodlots, gardens, the Eldorado Golf Club, lawns, pasture lands with high rock content, and properties with existing infrastructure that would be damaged by ploughing. These lands must be subjected to a test pit survey at five-metre intervals in accordance with Section 2.1.2 of the 2011 S&G.

6. All areas that have been previously subjected to a Stage 2 AA, and that have outstanding Stage 3 and Stage 4 fieldwork, must be subjected to the appropriate levels of archaeological fieldwork, as per their respective AA reports (see Map 9, marked in pink).

Archeoworks Inc. 30


5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION

1. This report is submitted to the MTCS as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the MTCS, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

2. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

3. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

4. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.

Archeoworks Inc. 31


6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Archaeological Services Inc. (1996). The Archaeological Assessment of Brookvalley Holdings Ltd., Part Lot 26, Concession 6, Town of Brooklin, Regional Municipality of Durham. Archaeological Services Inc. (1997). The Archaeological Assessment of Brookvalley Holdings Ltd., Part Lot 26, Concession 6, Town of Brooklin, RM of Durham (Licence #96-019, 97-017). Archaeological Services Inc. (2011). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (Property Assessment) for the Highway 407 East, Owner's Engineer Assignment, Phase One (407 ETR to Simcoe Street) Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario - 2010 RESULTS (PIF#P117-163-2010). Archaeological Services Inc. (2012). Stage 2 Property Assessment: Highway 407 East Owner’s Engineer Assignment, Phase One (407 ETR to East of Harmony Road) City of Pickering, Town of Whitby, and City of Oshawa (Former Townships of Pickering, Whitby, and East Whitby in County of Ontario), Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario – 2011 RESULTS (PIF# P094-087-2011). Archaeological Services Inc. and URS Canada Inc. (2010). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the 407 East Individual Environmental Assessment, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario - 2008 RESULTS (PIF# P290-002-2008, P117-134-2008, P117-136-2008). Archaeological Services Inc. and URS Canada Inc. (2011). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the 407 East Individual Environmental Assessment, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario - 2009 RESULTS (PIF# P117-146-2009, P088-010-2009). Archaeological Services Inc. (2011). Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment: Daniel Holliday Site (AlGr-198), Highway 407 East, part of Lot 30, Concession V, Geographic Township of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (P117-154-2009). Archaeological Services Inc. (2012a). Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment: Delong 1 Site (AlGr-139), Highway 407 East, Part of Lot 26, Concession 5, Geographic Township of East Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (P094-101-2011) Archaeological Services Inc. (2012b). Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment: Thomas Moore Site (AlGr-208), Highway 407 East, Part of Lot 18, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. Revised Report. (PIF# P094-088-2011). Archeoworks Inc. (2004). Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of: The Proposed Roybrook Farm Subdivision, part of Lot 24, Concession 5, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (CIF# P029-128) Archeoworks Inc. (2005). Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Brookvalley Phase 6 and Annex Lands Subdivision 18T-970223, part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 6 and Part of the Road

Archeoworks Inc. 32


Allowance Between Lots 18 and 19, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (CIF# P029-152). Archeoworks Inc. (2006). Stage 3 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Paxton Site (AlGr-171), Within the Brookvalley Phase 6 and Annex Lands, Subdivision 18T-970223, Part of Lot 20, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (CIF#: P029-152 and P029-189). Archeoworks Inc. (2006). Stage 4 Archaeological Mitigation of the Paxton Site: AlGr-171, Lot 20, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (CIF# P029-243-2006). Archeoworks Inc. (2006). Stage 4 Archaeological Mitigation of: the Thorndike Site (AlGr-172), Lot 19, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (P029-242-2006) Archeoworks Inc. (2007a). Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) of: Carnwith North Lands, Part of Lot 24, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham. Archeoworks Inc. (2007b). Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) for the: Brooklin North Landowner’s Group Study Area, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (PIF# P029-327-2006). Archeoworks Inc. (2009a). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA) of: Highway 7 Widening From Brock Road to Approximately 200m East of Highway 7/12, GWP 2110-05-00, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Class EA, Ontario (P029-530-2008). Archeoworks Inc. (2009b). Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment and Stage 4 Mitigation of the Carnwith Site (AlGr-180), Part of Lot 24, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (PIF#P029-527-2008) Archeoworks Inc. (2011). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA): Brooklin North Landowner’s Group Study Area, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario. (PIF# P029-367-2007, P029-560-2008, P029-561-2009). Archeoworks Inc. (2012a). Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Matthewson (AlGr-236) Site within Lot 26, Concession 7, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (PIF# P334-233-2012). Archeoworks Inc. (2012b). Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of: 625 Columbus Road West within Part of Lots 27 & 28, Concession 6, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (PIF# P029-793-2012). Archeoworks Inc. (2013). Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of: The Brooklin H15 Site (AlGr-246) within Part of the Southern Half of Lot 22, Concession 7, Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (PIF# P334-054-2011).

Archeoworks Inc. 33


Archeoworks Inc. (unpublished). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for the: Proposed Residential Subdivision Development Within Lot 26, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Whitby, Former County of Ontario, Now Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (P390-0060-2013) Archeoworks Inc. (unpublished). Stage 4 Partial Excavation of the: Thomas Moore Site (AlGr-208) as Part of the Highway 407 East Extension – Phase 1, Within Lot 18, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Whitby, Former County of Ontario, Now Town of Whitby, Regional Municipality of Durham,Ontario (P390-0044-2013) Ashton, S. (2013). Email from L. Templeton re Designated and Listed Heritage Properties within the Town of Whitby/Archeology Map, 17 September 2013 Beers, J.H. & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ontario. Birch, J. (2010). Coalescence and Conflict in Iroquoian Ontario. [Online]. Available at: http://uga.academia.edu/JenniferBirch/Papers/183903/Coalescence_and_Conflict_in_Iroquoian_Ontario [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013a). The Archaeology of Ontario – The Early Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/earlyw.htm [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013b). The Archaeology of Ontario – The Middle Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/middlew.php [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013c). The Archaeology of Ontario – The Late Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/latew.htm [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Association (CLOCA). (2008). Lynde Creek Watershed Existing Conditions Report: Chapter 2 – Human Heritage. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cloca.com/2007/Lynde%20Watershed%20Existing%20Conditions/Lynde%20Watershed%20Plan%20Reports/2.LyndeCreek_EC_Human%20Heritage_June08.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Chapman, L. J. and Putnam, D. F. (1984). Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ministry of Natural Resources. Coopers, Charles. (2008). 3. The Whitby, Port Perry & Lindsay Railway – The “Nip and Tuck” Available at http://www.ldmr.org/files/3%20%20The%20Whitby,%20Port%20Perry%20 and%20Lindsay%20Ry.pdf. [Accessed 9 September 2012].

http://uga.academia.edu/JenniferBirch/Papers/183903/Coalescence_and_Conflict_in_Iroquoian_Ontario

http://uga.academia.edu/JenniferBirch/Papers/183903/Coalescence_and_Conflict_in_Iroquoian_Ontario

http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/earlyw.htm

http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/middlew.php

http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/latew.htm

http://www.cloca.com/2007/Lynde%20Watershed%20Existing%20Conditions/Lynde%20Watershed%20Plan%20Reports/2.LyndeCreek_EC_Human%20Heritage_June08.pdf

http://www.cloca.com/2007/Lynde%20Watershed%20Existing%20Conditions/Lynde%20Watershed%20Plan%20Reports/2.LyndeCreek_EC_Human%20Heritage_June08.pdf

http://www.ldmr.org/files/3%20%20The%20Whitby,%20Port%20Perry%20and

http://www.ldmr.org/files/3%20%20The%20Whitby,%20Port%20Perry%20and

Archeoworks Inc. 34


Dodd, C.F., Poulton, D. R., Lennox, P.A., Smith, D.G., and Warrick, G.A. (1990). The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 321-359. Ellis, C.J. and Deller, D.B. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 37-64. Ellis, C.J., Kenyon, I.T., and Spence, M.W. (1990). The Archaic. In Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris (Eds). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp65-124. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. (1994a). National Topographic Survey of Canada, Series A 751, Map 30 M/14. 9th ed. Ottawa. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. (1994b). National Topographic Survey of Canada, Series A 751, Map 30 M/15. 8th ed. Ottawa. Fox, W. A. (1990). The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 171-188. . Gardiner, H.F. (1899). Nothing But Names – An Inquiry into the Origins of the Names of the Counties and Townships of Ontario. [Online]. Available at: http://archive.org/stream/nothingnames00garduoft/nothingnames00garduoft_djvu.txt [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Gibson, M. M. (2006). In the Footsteps of the Mississaugas. Mississauga, Ontario: Mississauga Heritage Foundation. Google, Inc. (2013). Google Earth. Version 7.1.1.1888. [Accessed 16 September 2013]. Hathaway, E, the Late (1930). The River Credit and the Mississaugas. In Ontario Historical Society Papers and Records Vol. xxvi. Toronto: Ontario Historical Society. Heidenreich, C.E. (1978). Huron. In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Volume 15: Northeast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp.368-388. Heritage Oshawa. (2013). Inventory of Heritage Properties. [Online]. Available at: http://www.oshawa.ca/media/file/2011%20Heritage%20Oshawa%20Inventory.pdf [Accessed 10 September 2013]. Hunting Survey Corporation Limited (1954). Digital Aerial Photographs, Southern Ontario. [Online]. Available at http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/data/on/AP_1954/index.html [Accessed 15 September 2013].

http://archive.org/stream/nothingnames00garduoft/nothingnames00garduoft_djvu.txt

http://www.oshawa.ca/media/file/2011%20Heritage%20Oshawa%20Inventory.pdf

Archeoworks Inc. 35


Johnson, D. (2004). Connecting People to Place: Great Lakes Aboriginal History in Cultural Context. [Online]. Available at: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipper wash/transcripts/pdf/P1_Tab_1.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Karrow, P.F. and Warner, B.G. (1990). The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 5-35. Mika, N and Mika, H. (1977). Places in Ontario – Their Name Origins and History: Part I A-E. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company. Mika, N and Mika, H. (1983). Places in Ontario – Their Name Origins and History: Part III N-Z. Belleville, Ontario: Mika Publishing Company. New Directions Archaeology Ltd. (2006). Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of Highway 7, from Brock Road to Highway 12 (CIF# P018-161). Northeastern Archaeological Associates, (1997). Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, Part Lots 21 and 22, Concession 5, Town of Whitby, 18T-94010 (License 97-26). Northeastern Archaeological Associates (2000). Stage 1 to 3 Archaeological Assessment of Part Lot 25, Concession 6, Whitby Township, Regional Municipality of Durham (CIF#2000-07-01). Northeastern Archaeological Associates (2002). Stage 1 to 3 Archaeological Assessment of Part Lot 23, Concession 6, Whitby Township, Regional Municipality of Durham (CIF# 2001-006; 2000-017, 2000-005). Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2013). Sites within a One Kilometre Radius of the Project Area, provided from the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database, April 30, 2013. Schmalz, P.S. (1991). The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Smith, D.G. (2002). Their Century and a Half on the Credit: The Mississaugas in Mississauga. In Mississauga: The First 10,000 Years. Toronto, Ontario: The Mississauga Heritage Foundation Inc., 123-138. Spence, M.W., Pihl, R.H., and Murphy, C.R. (1990). Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 125-169.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/transcripts/pdf/P1_Tab_1.pdf

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/transcripts/pdf/P1_Tab_1.pdf

Archeoworks Inc. 36


Surtees, R. J. (1986). Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties. [Online]. Available at http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/traw_1100100029001_eng.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2013]. Surtees, R.J. (1994). Land Cessions, 1763-1830. In Rogers, E.S. (Ed.) Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp. 92-121. Tremaine, G. (1860). Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario. Canada West. Toronto. Trigger, Bruce G. (1994).The Original Iroquoians: Huron, Petun and Neutral. In Edward S. Rogers (Eds.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp 41-63. Warrick, G.A. (2007). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. In Kerber, J.E. (Ed.) Archaeology of the Iroquois: Selected Readings and Research Sources. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. 124-164. Warrick, G. (2008). A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 500-1650. New York: Cambridge University Press. Williamson, R. F. (1990). The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario . In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp. 291-320. Wright, J.V. (1994).Before European Contact. In Edward S. Rogers (Eds.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp 21-40 Wright, J.V. (1999). A History of the Native People of Canada: Volume II (1,000B.C. – A.D. 500). Hull, Quebec: Museum of Civilization.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/traw_1100100029001_eng.pdf

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ/STAGING/texte-text/traw_1100100029001_eng.pdf

Archeoworks Inc. 37


APPENDIX A: MAPS

Map 1: National Topographical System Map (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1994a; 1994b) identifying the Stage 1 AA study area.

Archeoworks Inc. 38


Map 2: Study area within the Tremaine’s Map of the County of Ontario, Canada West. Toronto (Tremaine, 1860).

Archeoworks Inc. 39


Map 3: Study area within the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Canada West (J.H. Beers & Co., 1877).

Archeoworks Inc. 40


Map 4: Designated and Listed Heritage Properties within and within 300 metres of the Study Area (Courtesy of the Planning Department at the Town of Whitby, 2013).

Archeoworks Inc. 41


Map 5: Map identifying portions of the study area that have been subjected to previous assessments.

Archeoworks Inc. 42


Map 6: Study area within a 1954 aerial photograph (Hunting Survey Corporation Ltd., 1954).

Archeoworks Inc. 43


Map 7: Study area (outlined in yellow) in a satellite image taken August 31, 2009 (Google Inc., 2013).

Archeoworks Inc. 44


Map 8: Stage 1 AA of the study area, with photo locations indicated.

Archeoworks Inc. 45


Map 9: Stage 1 AA of the study area, without photo locations indicated.

Archeoworks Inc. 46


APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Feature of Archaeological Potential Yes No Unknown Comment

1 Known archaeological sites within 300 m? X If Yes, potential confirmed

Physical Features Yes No Unknown Comment

2 Is there water on or near the property? X If Yes, potential confirmed

2a Presence of primary water source within 300 metres of the study area (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks)

X If Yes, potential confirmed

2b Presence of secondary water source within 300 metres of the study area (intermittent creeks and streams, springs, marshes, swamps)


2c Features indicating past presence of water source within 300 metres (former shorelines, relic water channels, beach ridges)


2d Accessible or inaccessible shoreline (high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh)


3 Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaus, etc) X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

4 Pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky ground

X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

5 Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, waterfalls, peninsulas, etc) X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

Cultural Features Yes No Unknown Comment

6 Is there a known burial site or cemetery that is registered with the Cemeteries Regulation Unit on or directly adjacent to the property?


7 Associated with food or scarce resource harvest areas (traditional fishing locations, food extraction areas, raw material outcrops, etc)


8 Indications of early Euro-Canadian settlement (monuments, cemeteries, structures, etc) within 300 metres


9 Associated with historic transportation route (historic road, trail, portage, rail corridor, etc) within 100 metres of the property


Property-specific Information Yes No Unknown Comment

10 Contains property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act X If Yes to two or more of 3-5 or 7-10, potential confirmed

11 Local knowledge (aboriginal communities, heritage organizations, municipal heritage committees, etc)


12 Recent ground disturbance, not including agricultural cultivation (post-1960, extensive and deep land alterations)

Yes (only parts of study area)

If Yes, low archaeological potential is determined

Archeoworks Inc. 47


APPENDIX C: IMAGES

Image 1: Looking northwest at disturbed land consisting of housing developments and paved streets.

Image 2: Looking south at disturbed land consisting of housing developments and paved streets.

Image 3: Looking east at disturbed land consisting of housing developments and paved street.

Image 4: Looking north at disturbed land consisting of park development.

Archeoworks Inc. 48


Image 5: Looking northeast at disturbed road right-of-way (roadside embankment, culvert, utilities) .

Image 6: Looking at disturbed gravel patch.

Image 7: Looking east at permanently wet area.

Image 8: Looking east at permanently wet area.

Archeoworks Inc. 49


Image 9: Looking south at disturbed road right-of-way (roadside embankment)

Image 10: Looking east at disturbed road right-of-way (roadside embankment)

Image 11: Looking north disturbed road right-of-way (roadside embankment/berm)

Image 12: Looking north at agricultural field.

Archeoworks Inc. 50


Image 13: Looking east at agricultural field.

Image 14: Looking north at sloped land.

Image 15: Looking west at grassed lawn.

Image 16: Looking east at area with tall grass.

Archeoworks Inc. 51


Image 17: Looking west area with tall grass and lawn.

Image 18: Looking east at heavy brush/ wooded area.

Image 19: Looking north at wooded area.

Archeoworks Inc. 52


APPENDIX D: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTARY AND MATERIAL RECORD

Project Information:

Project Number: 028-2195-06

Licensee: Nimal Nithiyanantham

MTCS PIF: P390-0047-2013

Document/ Material Location Comments

1. Written Field Notes, Annotated Field Maps

Archeoworks Inc., 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4

Scanned and stored on Archeoworks network servers –two (2) digital files

2. Research/ Reporting Material Archeoworks Inc., 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4

Stored on Archeoworks network servers - /2006/028-2195-06 - Whitby-Brooklin Landowners (Whitby)/2013 Stage 1 of Secondary Plan

3. Field (Digital) Archeoworks Inc., 16715-12 Yonge Street, Suite 1029, Newmarket, ON, Canada, L3X 1X4

Stored on Archeoworks network servers – 20 digital files

Archeoworks Inc. 53


APPENDIX E: PIF REVISIONS The following changes have been made to this project’s PIF as it was originally submitted:

a) The study area has been modified from that submitted with the original PIF. This is the result of better available mapping provided internally.

stages 1-3 archaeological assessment of · jay villapando . archeoworks inc. 1 stage 1...

Documents